Flickr

22 June 2008

Has the San Francisco SPCA gone off-course? A defense from the top

Last week, I blogged about a recent article in San Francisco Weekly that was sharply critical of the San Francisco SPCA. Under the direction of Richard Avanzino, now head of Maddie's Fund, SF SPCA was a leader in the early no-kill movement. They also founded the Hearing Dog Program, which took dogs out of shelters and trained them to be assistance dogs for the hearing impaired. That program would have been 30 years old this fall, but instead, it was closed on April 21 of this year.

I spoke to SF SPCA president Jan McHugh-Smith about the closing of the HDP, the SF Weekly article, and the mission of the agency. While she shied away from the term "no kill" itself (as it seems many in the shelter industry are doing these days), she insisted that "We have the same commitment to saving animal lives we always have," stressing that the shelter has an enviable live-release rate of 98 percent this year, and in combination with San Francisco Animal Care and Control, a county-wide live release rate of 84 percent -- somewhat down from previous county highs, but still far higher than national averages.

SF Weekly's article blamed the development of an expensive animal hospital at the shelter as being the cause of what it presented as negative changes at SF SPCA, and McHugh-Smith disagreed. She said that the development of the hospital was necessary for the health and well-being of the shelter animals, not just paying clients of the hospital. She particularly pointed out that disease control protocols – including protecting new shelter animals from spreading disease to the existing shelter population and from getting sick themselves, as well as reducing stress while they are being treated medically and spayed and neutered -- were part of the shelter's animal lifesaving mission and best shelter practices.

She also said that there was public outcry against the construction of the SF SPCA's Maddie's Adoption Center (pictured right) at one time, and yet now, that center is a model for those being built all over the country.

"Sheltering has changed so much in the last 20 years," she said. "Maddie’s Adoption Center was a paradigm shift in its day, and now, it’s the same with the hospital."

She also said that she found it uspetting to hear the SF SPCA called “a kill shelter,” or suggest it’s lost its commitment to animal lifesaving. "I want people to have faith in the SF SPCA," she told me. "We are a model for people to follow, of how to use best practices."

My Tuesday article in SFGate.com will be about the closing of the Hearing Dog Program. I have also posted the complete transcript of my interview with McHugh-Smith, as well as some comments issued by the shelter in response to the SF Weekly piece, here.

I know this is old news but I just have to point out the arrogance in McHugh-Smiths comment. She wants people to have faith in SF SPCA, and states “we are a model for people to follow, of how to use best practices.” I'm sorry but you need to give people REAL REASONS to have faith in you, it is not a religious organization. Without doing so that statement simply does not follow, and tooting your own horn in such a way is just another expression of the same self-centered mindset as far as I'm concerned. Give us FACTS, not these self serving affirmations. What are the disease statistics that would warrant the new hospital, for example? Again, ANY thinking person would likely see that plenty of money has been spent on the IMAGE of the hospital, can you claim it is completely functional, so that the funds can be maximized for the ANIMAL POPULATION? You're not fooling anyone but the gullible, Ms. McHugh-Smith.

Clearly many people have a double standard with their own pets and other animals that have simply not been as fortunate. Frankly I think it is self evident to any thinking person that this attitude is one that caters to pet owners rather than the animals themselves, which is basically self centered rather than anything altruistic. It is indeed unfortunate that individuals with such mentalities should be in a position of power governing policies that affect so many animals lives - and in effect ending them.